MENU
[Conduct NKP Fleet Management]
In an effort to control cloud cost consumption, auto-scale is configured to meet demands as needed.
What is the behavior for when nodes are scaled down?
Suggested Answer: B
Get Premium NCP-CN Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
33 comments · newest first
PE
Peggie
10 months ago
Power-Off for stand-by is a common approach, right?
RE
Reynalda
10 months ago
I’m not so sure about that. Hibernate sounds plausible too.
PA
Patria
10 months ago
Wait, nodes can just be paused? That seems odd!
ER
Ernie
10 months ago
Definitely agree with that! CAPI deletion makes sense.
LA
Lavonda
11 months ago
I think the node gets deleted from the infrastructure provider.
RI
Rickie
11 months ago
I thought nodes just get paused and resources keep getting consumed, but that doesn't seem efficient for cost control.
JU
Julio
11 months ago
I practiced a similar question, and I feel like the node should go into a hibernation state, but I could be mixing it up with another topic.
BR
Brett
11 months ago
I remember something about nodes being powered off or hibernated, but I can't recall which one is correct for scaling down.
MA
Marget
11 months ago
I think when nodes are scaled down, they might be deleted from the infrastructure provider, but I'm not entirely sure if that's the right term.
JO
Jonell
12 months ago
This is a tricky one. I'm not entirely sure about the differences between the options, like what "CAPI deleted" or "paused in Kubernetes" actually means. I'll have to make an educated guess here and hope I get it right.
NG
Ngoc
12 months ago
Okay, I think I've got a good handle on this. Based on the information provided, I believe the correct answer is that the node is changed to a status of Power-Off for stand-by. That makes the most sense for an auto-scaling scenario where resources need to be conserved.
PH
Phuong
12 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The options seem to describe different ways the node could be handled, but I'm not sure which one is the correct behavior. I'll have to think this through carefully.
AN
Antonio
1 year ago
This seems like a straightforward question about how nodes are scaled down in an auto-scaling environment. I'll carefully read through the options and think about the expected behavior.
TY
Tyisha
1 year ago
But wouldn't pausing the node in Kubernetes be more efficient to save resources?
EL
Elke
1 year ago
I disagree, I believe the correct answer is C) Node is changed to a status of Power-Off for stand-by.
RO
Roxane
1 year ago
Alright, time to put on my scaling hat! Option B seems like the best way to keep those cloud costs under control. No need to hibernate or pause, just straight-up delete that node.
DO
Dorothy
1 year ago
Mayra: Definitely, no need to keep unnecessary resources running.
MA
Mayra
1 year ago
User 2: I think so too, deleting the node completely makes sense.
MA
Man
1 year ago
User 1: I agree, Option B is the most efficient way to control costs.
EL
Elbert
1 year ago
Wow, this question is really making me hungry. I could go for a nice power nap, like option C. That sounds pretty tasty right about now.
AL
Alishia
1 year ago
Hold up, did anyone else notice the 'CAPI' part? That's got to be the key here. B is the only option that mentions that acronym, so I'm going with it.
DA
Daron
1 year ago
Yeah, B makes the most sense considering the CAPI reference. Let's go with that.
TI
Tish
1 year ago
I agree, B seems like the most logical option based on the information provided.
LE
Lettie
1 year ago
I think you're onto something with that CAPI mention. B does seem like the right choice.
TY
Tyisha
1 year ago
I think the answer is A) Node is changed to a status of Hibernate.
ME
Meghan
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm not sure about that. Wouldn't pausing the node in Kubernetes be a more efficient way to save resources? Option D sounds like the way to go.
PA
Pansy
1 year ago
I agree, option D sounds like the best choice to save resources.
NO
Nobuko
1 year ago
I think pausing the node in Kubernetes would be more efficient.
PE
Peter
1 year ago
I think the correct answer is B. Removing the node from the infrastructure provider makes the most sense for controlling cloud costs.
TR
Truman
1 year ago
I think option A might be a good choice as well, hibernating the node could save on resources.
GI
Giuseppe
1 year ago
I agree, option C seems like a good choice for cost control.
ST
Steffanie
1 year ago
I believe the correct answer is C. Changing the node to a status of Power-Off for stand-by would also help in controlling costs.
GA
Gail
1 year ago
I think the correct answer is B. Removing the node from the infrastructure provider makes the most sense for controlling cloud costs.